AI Content Operations
You added AI to publish faster, and the review queue just got longer.
The bottleneck is review, not writing. Speed up drafting with AI and you only make that queue longer. The fix is a rubric, not another tool.
Tell us where things get stuck. We find where pieces actually wait, write down what good looks like so anyone can score it, and put AI on the drafting and the mechanical passes. The queue shrinks instead of growing.
Or text 562-726-2287. No form marathon, no discovery call.
2,500+ pages
Shipped once review got objective
One rubric
The thing AI plugs into
Human sign-off
Stays on everything that ships
Start here
Find out where the queue actually is before you add anything to it. In most organizations the bottleneck is review, not writing. Drafting is a few hours. Then a piece sits for three weeks waiting on people whose actual job is something else, and who can't tell you what "approved" means. Speeding up drafting with AI does nothing except make that queue longer.
The fix is usually a rubric, not a tool. Write down what good looks like, specifically enough that a designer or a developer can score a piece against it. Review stops being a matter of taste and becomes a check anyone can perform, which means it stops being one senior person's inbox.
AI helps in two places once that's in order. It drafts against the rubric so the first version is closer to the standard, and it does the mechanical passes nobody enjoys: consistency, formatting, checking a draft against the rules before a human sees it. A human still approves everything that goes out, and that's a constraint to design around, not a step to remove.
Sound familiar
You added AI, and somehow the work got harder.
You reached for AI to write faster, then spent longer fixing its draft than a blank page would have cost you.
What it hands back is generic and repetitive, and the tone sits just slightly wrong, however you prompt it.
It makes things up: facts, anecdotes, customer wins that never happened, all delivered with a straight face.
Nobody trusts a word of it, so you're not writing less. You're reviewing more.
A draft still sits for three weeks, waiting on people whose real job is something else, who can't tell you what "approved" means.
AI multiplies whatever you feed it, and multiplying a generic, unreviewed process just buys you more generic, faster.
None of this is an AI problem. It's a review problem, and AI just made it louder. Here's the version your team and your execs actually trust.
The version where this works
Publishing speeds up because review gets objective, and AI drafts against a standard your execs already trust.
Not a content farm, and not one more tool. You write down what good looks like, specific enough that a designer or a developer can score a piece against it. Review stops being a matter of taste and becomes a check anyone can run, so it stops being one senior person's inbox. AI drafts against that rubric, so version one starts near the standard instead of at zero, and it takes the mechanical passes nobody enjoys. A human still approves everything that ships, and now that approval is a fast step instead of a three-week queue.
The mechanism
The rubric is the actual mechanism.
The American College of Surgeons had an outdated site, a CMS the team didn't know, no dedicated copywriters, a globally distributed team, and a project heading for a missed deadline and an overage bill.
The change that mattered was making review objective. A review rubric let content specialists and non-specialists, designers and developers included, review work against stated criteria instead of against personal preference. Alongside it: a binary workflow so people who didn't consider themselves writers could still contribute against a voice and brand guide, Airtable to organize the audit and track URLs so nothing was lost, and batch review to stop stakeholder feedback arriving one piece at a time.
They shipped 2,500-plus pages and saved thousands of dollars in overage charges and a great deal of manual work. The project still launched two months after its original date, which is worth saying plainly: this rescued a project, it didn't make it early.
That was done before this kind of AI was available. The rubric is what AI now plugs into, and without one there's nothing for it to aim at.
What we do
What we actually do.
- Map the current workflow. We find where pieces actually wait, which is rarely where people think it is.
- Build the rubric. Specific enough to be scored by someone who isn't a writer, so review stops depending on one person's taste.
- Automate the mechanical passes. Consistency, formatting, and rule checks run before a human ever reviews the draft.
- Draft against the rubric. Version one starts near the standard instead of at zero, so review is a check rather than a rescue.
- Leave the approval step human. We design the workflow so that step is fast rather than absent, because a person still signs off on everything that ships.
Before you hire us
What this isn't.
It's not a content farm
If the goal is volume regardless of quality, there are cheaper vendors and you don't need us. This is about publishing more of what your execs actually trust, not more of anything.
It's not removing the reviewer
A human approves everything that goes out. We make the review fast enough that it stops being the bottleneck, not absent. Approval is a constraint to design around, not a step to remove.
It's not a tool purchase
If you already have the tools and things are still slow, the problem is the process, and a new tool won't touch it. We start with the workflow, not the software.
What it costs
There's no fixed price on this page, on purpose.
This is the one AI spoke where the work could be a one-off project or an ongoing retainer, so the number depends on which one you need. The floors live on the pages this routes into. See AI consulting for the whole picture, or content strategy if the problem is what to publish rather than how fast. Full detail is on the pricing page.
Related
If it's a different problem.
AI consulting
The whole picture. This is one spoke of it.
Content strategy
If the problem is what to publish rather than how fast.
AI workflow automation
If the repeated task isn't publishing.
Support retainer
If this is ongoing rather than a project.
Questions we get
What people usually ask.
Because the tool was never the bottleneck. Speeding up drafting does nothing when a piece then sits for three weeks in review. Fix the review process first, with a rubric anyone can score against, and only then does AI have something to aim at.
No. If the goal is volume regardless of quality, there are cheaper vendors and you don't need us. This is about publishing more of what your execs actually trust, not more of anything.
No. A human approves everything that goes out. We make the review fast enough that it stops being the bottleneck, not absent. Approval is a constraint to design around, not a step to remove.
Usually not. If you already have the tools and things are still slow, the problem is the process, and a new tool won't touch it. We start with the workflow, then point AI at the parts that actually help.
There's no fixed price on this page, on purpose. The work could be a project or an ongoing retainer. The floors live on AI consulting and content strategy, and full detail is on the pricing page.
Close
You'll publish more of what your execs actually trust.
Not more generic drafts nobody signs off on. A review anyone can run, AI pointed at a standard, and a human still approving what ships.
The bottleneck is review, not writing. Fix that first, then AI has something to aim at.